Photographers Rights Gray Card Set

quilmore

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/08/24/introducing-the-photographers-rights-gray-card-set/

probably for american law, but may be useful anywhere else

1. You can make a photograph of anything and anyone on any public property, except where a specific law prohibits it.

i.e. streets, sidewalks, town squares, parks, government buildings open to the public, and public libraries.

2. You may shoot on private property if it is open to the public, but you are obligated to stop if the owner requests it.

i.e. malls, retail stores, restaurants, banks, and office building lobbies.

3. Private property owners can prevent photography ON their property, but not photography OF their property from a public location.

4. Anyone can be photographed without consent when they are in a public place unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

i.e. private homes, restrooms, dressing rooms, medical facilities, and phone booths.

5. Despite common misconceptions, the following subjects are almost always permissible:

* accidents, fire scenes, criminal activities
* children, celebrities, law enforcement officers
* bridges, infrastructure, transportation facilities
* residential, commercial, and industrial buildings

6. Security is rarely an acceptable reason for restricting photography. Photographing from a public place cannot infringe on trade secrets, nor is it terrorist activity.

7. Private parties cannot detain you against your will unless a serious crime was committed in their presence. Those that do so may be subject to criminal and civil charges.

8. It is a crime for someone to threaten injury, detention, confiscation, or arrest because you are making photographs.

9. You are not obligated to provide your identity or reason for photographing unless questioned by a law enforcement officer and state law requires it.

10. Private parties have no right to confiscate your equipment without a court order. Even law enforcement officers must obtain one unless making an arrest. No one can force you to delete photos you have made.


These are general guidelines regarding the right to make photos and should not be interpreted as legal advice. If you need legal help, please contact a lawyer.

Fajitas!

Afaik, they all seem quite relevant to Irish law.

On the other hand, one would look like a right gobsh*te walking around with one of those hanging from their neck...

mikeanywhere

Fajitas! wrote: »

On the other hand, one would look like a right gobsh*te walking around with one of those hanging from their neck...

Just think how cool you would look though

smelltheglove

For anyone in England though it could be a good idea to have one in their bag considering the regular stories about police confrontations over there.

Kbeg3

Amateur Photographer did something similar but with a lens cloth

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/06/22/photographers-rights-printed-on-a-lens-cloth-by-amateur-photographer/

Fajitas!

Tbh, the people carrying these cards will get themselves in more bother than it's worth by pointing out that their card is law.

I've never had a problem in the UK, and the only people that usually are, are those who see themselves as 'photographers rights activists'... It's very rare a situation can't be solved by a few words, not resorting to pointing out the law, as being displayed on the leaflets hanging from ones neck...

jpb1974

and the only people that usually are, are those who see themselves as 'photographers rights activists'

Aye... I agree with this.

Rather than stamping your feet and waving around your little "photographer's rights" card it's often better to just keep it quiet or possibly just move on.

Trev M

I really dunno about the photographing kids thing .... I covered a public event recently and we were specifically instructed that under no circumstances where we to take a pic of a child without a release / consent form being signed first....

The way things are these days there is no way in hell Id take a pic of a random kid in public anyway. Its maybe a sad state of affairs but I just wouldnt want to deal with the potential hassle that could result.

Im with the "shuffle on with minimal hassle" brigade .

Barname

Fajitas! wrote: »

Tbh, the people carrying these cards will get themselves in more bother than it's worth by pointing out that their card is law.

I've never had a problem in the UK, and the only people that usually are, are those who see themselves as 'photographers rights activists'... It's very rare a situation can't be solved by a few words, not resorting to pointing out the law, as being displayed on the leaflets hanging from ones neck...

I agree, it appears to me that certain people have become 'photographers' so as they can go out and have an argument. Who with cop on and the ability to communicate and or explain themselves ends up having issues? No one I know.

CabanSail

Hands up who first read the title as

"Photographers Gay Rights Card Set"

o/

Fajitas!

You may be on your own there... :pac:

CabanSail

CabanSail wrote: »

Hands up who first read the title as

"Photographers Gay Rights Card Set"

o/

Yeah me too. My brain didn't understand it and I thought it was some kind of gay festival where photographers were being asked to come along or something.

When I clicked into the thread and seen the picture of the cards, I had to read it again.

Thecageyone

Fajitas! wrote: »

On the other hand, one would look like a right gobsh*te walking around with one of those hanging from their neck...

In your pocket? ...

I can't see me ever using those, but they might come in handy if you're ever faced with ignorance. Like the time security guards from a building across the street from where I was taking harmless shots confronted me. They pretty much started making up laws on spot.

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

Like the time security guards from a building across the street from where I was taking harmless shots confronted me. They pretty much started making up laws on spot.

What, this time? When the security guards didn't make up laws on the spot? And a 'photographers rights gray card' wouldn't have made a single difference about it?

Thecageyone

Yes, they made up some crap that the street was private property. I have since found out for certain it is not - that kinda means they made up some BS laws on spot to me, whether you like it or not, disagreeing for the sake of it is just silly ... the laws on those cards would have told the baboons that I had every right to photograph on that street - what do you not get about that?

Nice to know you remembered so quickly, I must have a profound effect on you.

Fajitas!

How? They're only cards?

Unless the cards stated;

'I hereby state that _____ street is public property,
and Mr. _____ can photography freely, without
prejudice on it,

Signed,
____________
The Lord Mayor of Navan'

With a wax stamp of authentity.

Otherwise, it's just something that's been printed off and shoved under someones nose. And people don't like 'things' being shoved under their nose unless they can be verified.

Nice to know you remembered so quickly, I must have a profound effect on you.

It's hard to forget an attitude like yours in the linked posts.

Thecageyone

I'm so glad I made an impression on someone so bitter ...

Having the cards wouldn't would be a better argument than makey-up privacy claims. They didn't have anything to point to saying I couldn't photograph there either ... But I still packed up and left. If my attitude was as bad as you'd love to believe [for some strange reason] I'd have disputed to the hilt and continued shooting.

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

I'm so glad I made an impression on someone so bitter ...

Trev M

Thecageyone

Yeah, I agree with that ancient, over-used toon, fajitas - no point trying to be right on this one. Maybe if I'd been shooting with an ancient film cam they'd have thought I was an elite-tog and left me alone :P

Irish Digital rights laws -

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

If I was right about the street being non-private, I was right to begin with. Only thing I learned from the experience, maybe, is not to stoop to baboon level, keep the head and if you know you're in the right you've nothing to fear.

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

Maybe if I'd been shooting with an ancient film cam they'd have thought I was an elite-tog and left me alone :P

Ouch. :rolleyes:

Irish Digital rights laws -

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

If I was right about the street being non-private, I was right to begin with. Only thing I learned from the experience, maybe, is not to stoop to baboon level, keep the head and if you know you're in the right you've nothing to fear.

*IF* is the thing. The cards (The cards, remember? Not my camera.) are assuming you're in the right in the first place. You still have to ensure, for your own benefit, whether you are in the right. And even then, they're sheets of paper. Anyone can print out a piece of paper and hang them from their neck, it doesn't make the official.

Thecageyone

Just stooping to your level of begrudgery there for a sec, sorry about that
Film cameras are cool, maybe it's just the users that are not? :P

Well, someone went to the bother of printing up these cards, I'd like to think they used actual laws or what's the point?

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

Just stooping to your level of begrudgery there for a sec, sorry about that
Film cameras are cool, maybe it's just the users that are not? :P

a) When did this become about film cameras and their users?

b) You'll be better off keeping your petty comments to yourself, rather than trying to distract from the topic or start an argument.

Well, someone went to the bother of printing up these cards, I'd like to think they used actual laws or what's the point?

Because anybody can print anything on a card. That's the point a security guard will take.

Thecageyone

Fajitas! wrote: »

a) When did this become about film cameras and their users?

b) You'll be better off keeping your petty comments to yourself, rather than trying to distract from the topic or start an argument.



Because anybody can print anything on a card. That's the point a security guard will take.

When it became an attempt by you to show me up for no reason other than a need to get over yourself? I think people would have to be blind not to see you're trying to stir

Fajitas! wrote: »

It's hard to forget an attitude like yours in the linked posts.

Stirring ^ - You're displaying the attitude here now, getting all jumpy about a humorous pop at film cam users ... my God. My dad has a film camera ... Doubt he'd take offence.

It's called joking/jest - The 'petty comments' are so obviously in jest, not my fault you have zero sense of humour ... I even used smilies, Sigh.

Security guards from a building nothing to do with where I was shooting can say whatever they like, if they've nothing to back up their made up rules, then they've no more right than I do in that place. Pretty simple. If you were a bouncer on the door of a particular night club, you don't have the right to bar people from other pubs.

TinyExplosions

Hmmm, I'm not sure where I stand on these cards and their ilk -I think that the info on them is good, and that anyone taking pictures in public would be smart to know the rules, but I don't think carrying it around will do anyone any good. If you're confornted by a security guard/copper/angry mother, pulling out a piece of paper with "the law says I can do this" is not going to help matters. If someone wants to ruin your day, they'll do so regardless.

Also, the info on the ones posted by the OP are for the UK, and laws here are different (for example you are obliged to give your details to a member of the Gardai, whereas you don't have to give info to the UK police unless you being detained), so you should know the local laws!

Finally, while the well publicized abuses of power in the UK again photographer make great, blood boiling "let's go out an take down the system" type reading/viewing, I can't help but feel that in most of the cases (though not all), the photographer was going out of his way to make his point and tell the cops how to do their job -certainly that's his right, and he was morally correct, but he could have saved a lot of hassle by handling things a little better imo

Thecageyone

Ah, for sure. If a Cop asked me for my details, I'd give them. Stupid not to, as you've nothing to worry about if the law is in fact on your side. A security guard from a random nearby building though? No right to ask you what you're at, as if you're some kind of potential terrorist because you have a big camera.

Street photography is the dodgiest I think. Taking random pictures of other people's children could lead to problems nobody really wants to get involved in. Right or wrong. Those cards suggest it's ok, or at least perfectly legal, to take pictures of kids in public. I wouldn't like to be trying to emphasise that to an angry/upset parent.

It is gone a bit mad though. Only last year I would have taken pictures of my own kids in the playground, nowadays I put the camera away unless they are well away from any other kids ... It's sad that things have gone that way.

TinyExplosions

Thecageyone wrote: »

Ah, for sure. If a Cop asked me for my details, I'd give them. Stupid not to, as you've nothing to worry about if the law is in fact on your side.

That's actually one place we differ -I would have a huge problem giving my details to a Cop if I was doing nothing wrong, simply because you have no idea what that information is going to be used for, and how long it stays around. It may be a little timfoil helmet, but the last thing I want is it coming to a "Ah, we have you on record here of being stopped in the street, so you've a history of being a nuisance". I can understand, and fully support having to give up your details if you're being detained/cautioned/arrested, but I would have a big problem giving details to a cop just because he asked for them. (unfortunately here you can't refuse, but I certainly would in the UK)

CabanSail

Please keep things here on topic and cease the personal jibes.

Those that wish to continue could receive bans.

Thecageyone

TinyExplosions wrote: »

That's actually one place we differ -I would have a huge problem giving my details to a Cop if I was doing nothing wrong, simply because you have no idea what that information is going to be used for, and how long it stays around. It may be a little timfoil helmet, but the last thing I want is it coming to a "Ah, we have you on record here of being stopped in the street, so you've a history of being a nuisance". I can understand, and fully support having to give up your details if you're being detained/cautioned/arrested, but I would have a big problem giving details to a cop just because he asked for them. (unfortunately here you can't refuse, but I certainly would in the UK)

Well, you have a good point there, but you'd find it hard to argue with a Cop asking for your details, you just know they will say you have to - and will caution you for not doing so. catch 22.

TinyExplosions

Thecageyone wrote: »

Well, you have a good point there, but you'd find it hard to argue with a Cop asking for your details, you just know they will say you have to - and will caution you for not doing so. catch 22.

Over here, yes indeed (as they can demand your details). Elsewhere, a polite "I would rather not give you my details unless you are detaining me, I am a photographer taking pictures of <insert building name here> for work" tends to work, as the paperwork and hassle that the po po has to go through for detaining you over something incredibly minor is a great deterrent. Though like most things in life, it's all down to how you say it, not what you actually say!

Thecageyone

I've passed by scenarios where the Cops would have people pulled over and a bit of a ruckus emerging. I'd be tempted to take out the camera and take a picture, but I'd resist as I know there'd be conflict over it. Even when I know [at least, according to those cards] that I'd be within my rights to do so. Sometimes it's just not worth the hassle.

The one time I was approached, I hadn't even been aiming the camera anywhere near the guys who had issues. They had to cross a street and walk down the road a bit to approach me. It wasn't like I was acting like a pap and trying to wind them up. Didn't even see them until they were right beside me. There should be protection for photographers who aren't causing problems, minding their own ... And sure, there's better ways to deal with someone taking issue, but that was my first and only time and you have to learn by mistakes I guess.